Is return on investment the appropriate tool for healthcare quality improvement governance?

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is return on investment the appropriate tool for healthcare quality improvement governance?

AU - Thusini, S'thembile

AU - Soukup, Tayana

AU - Henderson, Claire

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited.

PY - 2024/9/19

Y1 - 2024/9/19

N2 - Purpose: In this article, we outline our views on the appropriateness and utility of Return on Investment (ROI) for the evaluation of the value of healthcare quality improvement (QI) programmes. Design/methodology/approach: Our recent research explored the ROI concept and became the genesis of our viewpoint. We reflect on our findings from an extensive research project on the concept of ROI, involving a multidisciplinary global systematic literature review, a qualitative and Delphi study with mental healthcare leaders from the United Kingdom National Health Service. Research participants included board members, clinical directors and QI leaders. Our findings led to our conclusions and interpretation of ROI against the broad QI governance. We discuss our views against the predominant governance frameworks and wider literature. Findings: ROI is in-line with top-down control governance frameworks based in politics and economics. However, there is evidence that to be of better utility, a tool for the assessment of the value of QI benefits must include comprehensive benefits that reflect broad monetary and non-monetary benefits. This is in-line with bottom-up and collaborative governance approaches. ROI has several challenges that may limit it as a QI governance tool. This is supported by wider literature on ROI, QI as well as modern governance theories and models. As such, we question whether ROI is the appropriate tool for QI governance. A more pragmatic governance framework that accommodates various healthcare objectives is advised. Practical implications: This article highlights some of the challenges in adopting ROI as a QI governance tool. We signal a need for the exploration of a suitable QI governance approach. Particularly, are healthcare leaders to be perceived as “agents”, “stewards” or both. The evidence from our research and wider literature indicates that both are crucial. Better QI governance through an appropriate value assessment tool could improve clarity on QI value, and thus investment allocation decision-making. Constructive discussion about the utility and appropriateness of ROI in the evaluation of healthcare QI programmes may help safeguard investment in effective and efficient health systems. Originality/value: The article raises awareness of QI governance and encourages discussions about the challenges of using ROI as a tool for healthcare QI governance.

AB - Purpose: In this article, we outline our views on the appropriateness and utility of Return on Investment (ROI) for the evaluation of the value of healthcare quality improvement (QI) programmes. Design/methodology/approach: Our recent research explored the ROI concept and became the genesis of our viewpoint. We reflect on our findings from an extensive research project on the concept of ROI, involving a multidisciplinary global systematic literature review, a qualitative and Delphi study with mental healthcare leaders from the United Kingdom National Health Service. Research participants included board members, clinical directors and QI leaders. Our findings led to our conclusions and interpretation of ROI against the broad QI governance. We discuss our views against the predominant governance frameworks and wider literature. Findings: ROI is in-line with top-down control governance frameworks based in politics and economics. However, there is evidence that to be of better utility, a tool for the assessment of the value of QI benefits must include comprehensive benefits that reflect broad monetary and non-monetary benefits. This is in-line with bottom-up and collaborative governance approaches. ROI has several challenges that may limit it as a QI governance tool. This is supported by wider literature on ROI, QI as well as modern governance theories and models. As such, we question whether ROI is the appropriate tool for QI governance. A more pragmatic governance framework that accommodates various healthcare objectives is advised. Practical implications: This article highlights some of the challenges in adopting ROI as a QI governance tool. We signal a need for the exploration of a suitable QI governance approach. Particularly, are healthcare leaders to be perceived as “agents”, “stewards” or both. The evidence from our research and wider literature indicates that both are crucial. Better QI governance through an appropriate value assessment tool could improve clarity on QI value, and thus investment allocation decision-making. Constructive discussion about the utility and appropriateness of ROI in the evaluation of healthcare QI programmes may help safeguard investment in effective and efficient health systems. Originality/value: The article raises awareness of QI governance and encourages discussions about the challenges of using ROI as a tool for healthcare QI governance.

KW - Continuous QI

KW - Health care quality

KW - Leadership

KW - Organisational development for effective clinical governance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85201976826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/IJHG-06-2024-0067

DO - 10.1108/IJHG-06-2024-0067

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85201976826

SN - 2059-4631

VL - 29

SP - 296

EP - 308

JO - International Journal of Health Governance

JF - International Journal of Health Governance

IS - 3

ER -